AYANWALE & ORS. V. ATANDA & ANOR
| Pages | 1-13 |
AYANWALE & ORS. V. ATANDA & ANOR
1
AYANWALE & ORS. V. ATANDA & ANOR
5
1.
ADEPOJU AYANWALE
2.
OJEDIRAN JANDUKU
10
3. SAMUEL OYELAMI OLAWOYIN
4.
MOSES OLALEYE IDOWU
APPELLANTS
(For themselves and on behalf of
Sobiganna Ruling House Family of IGANNA)
V
15
1. BABALOLA ATANDA
2.
JAMES IGE
RESPONDENTS
(For himself and on behalf of
APODUN FAMILY)
SUIT NO. SC 198/1985
20
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
OPUTA,
J.S.C.
WALT,
J.S.C.
25
CRAIG,
J.S.C.
15th January, 1988
Land Law - Declaration of Title to Land - Mode of proof
30
Evidence - Evidence of previous proceedings - Admissibility in subsequent suit -
Witnesses - Credibility of - Effect of inconsistency.
Practice and Procedure - Filing of Statement of Claim out of time - Defendant
not objecting to - Effect of - Appeals - Concurrent findings of fact by Lower
35
Courts - Role of appellate tribunals.
ISSUES:
1. Under what circumstances will evidence given in a previous suit be taken as
admissible in a later suit?
40
2. What are the accepted modes of proof in an action for declaration of title to
land?
3.
What is the effect where a party to an action takes service of a statement of
claim filed out of time without objection?
4.
What is the effect where a party to a suit consents to a wrong procedure and
45
had suffered no injustice?
5.
Whether an appellate court will interfere with findings of fact made by a trial
court which are amply supported by evidence.
FACTS:
The Respondents instituted an action against the appellants in the High Court
50
of Western Nigeria (Ibadan) in 1965 for a declaration of title to land. Following the
creation of Oyo State, the suit was transferal to the Oyo State High Court. After
various amendments to substitute persons in place of others who had died while
the suit pended, the High Court finally found for the respondents as per their writ
of summons, in coming to its decision in the case, the trial court had relied on two
To continue reading
Request your trial